Agree that teaching 'precautionaries' should be as realistic as you can, and still be legal. In Australia, that's becoming a debatable issue.
Not long ago, or far away, I was prevented from demonstrating low level manoeuvring at an Airshow, by the State Manager of CASA, on the grounds that the airport was not a legally authorised low flying area as per CAR 141. I should add that I'm qualified and authorised to teach this work, and have my own approved area near Perth WA.
What it seems to boil down to is this. Unless the paddock, ag strip, or airport, is an authorised low flying area as per 141, then you are exposing yourself to action from the regulator. This especially if there is a complaint from the landholder re the paddock use, or from the airports neighbours or users, who are 'concerned for your safety'. Don't think you're safe to do this stuff over a properly authorised airport - it's not necessarily the case.
I've always beleived that too much stuffing about at lower levels is likely to further unsettle a low time pilot ,who's lost the plot sufficiently to be needing to land. What you can't see from 200 ft isn't worth worrying about. Overdoing the practice approaches, climbing away at vx etc, is tempting fate to intervene with carby ice, or even loss of control in turbulence. Get on with it!
The whole question of less experienced instructors taking students below 500 agl is one that the industry needs to address. My view is that every instructor should be required to be low level trained so that both precautionaries and PFL's can be continued down to a level where it is realistic, yet safe.
cheers
